Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,422
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,065
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,454
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.
    You treat the assault on Palestinian freedom and self-determination as something that happened long ago, when it's actually an ongoing encroachment of their homes and disenfranchisement of their people. Israel is holding elections this week, and in this beacon of democracy in the middle east, no Palestinian living in Israel will be able to cast a vote, even though their lives are materially affected by the outcome. These are not the innocent descendants of invaders that are long gone, they are the active participants in an apartheid state. I don't recognize a statute of limitations for settler-colonial genocide that continues unabated for decades and will not stop until the original inhabitants are wiped out. I have no beef with the Israeli people insofar as they are not complicit, unless they vote for people who carry out the expansion, in which case fuck them; their act of voting for people who openly call for further oppression denies them any claim of innocence in my eyes, and in the eyes of the people whose homes are destroyed because of those votes.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,023
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    How about in the analogy I was responding to? did you decipher any relevant bit? A group of people living for multiple generations in a country can be compared with a new squatter in your house... how?

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,065
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,454
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    How about in the analogy I was responding to? did you decipher any relevant bit? A group of people living for multiple generations in a country can be compared with a new squatter in your house... how?
    No, I couldn't make heads or tails of any of it. You should've just said that if it's what you meant. See my response to Jahryn. Squatters who start in one room of your house and gradually (through their descendants, let's say) take over more and more rooms, squishing you (or your descendants, let's say) into the equivalent of a guest bedroom and not letting you leave it, controlling what you're able to eat and drink in your guest bedroom, letting you walk around the rest of the house without giving you the ability to change the conditions you're living under, and indiscriminately murdering any of your family who resists or tries to reclaim the rooms that were taken over. Year after year, they hold elections and keep replacing the previous leaders--who are happy with the ongoing process of claiming more rooms for themselves--with new ones--who are similarly happy with said process and fully intend to continue it. The most sympathetic people from the world outside your house, despite the clear injustice of your situation, are people who just wish you'd agree to coexist with the new occupants and stop causing such a fuss. If you just agreed not to ask for the rest of your house back, they might be willing to vacate almost half of its rooms for you. Never mind the fact that you used to have half the rooms, and that didn't stop them from taking three quarters, and four fifths, and so on. What you'd really like back is what your ancestors rightly regarded as their home, all of it, without exception. I don't think you're in the wrong in that situation for not taking the deal given to you by the same people who perpetuate your miserable situation, even though they are only the descendants of the people who initiated it.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,422
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.
    You treat the assault on Palestinian freedom and self-determination as something that happened long ago, when it's actually an ongoing encroachment of their homes and disenfranchisement of their people. Israel is holding elections this week, and in this beacon of democracy in the middle east, no Palestinian living in Israel will be able to cast a vote, even though their lives are materially affected by the outcome. These are not the innocent descendants of invaders that are long gone, they are the active participants in an apartheid state. I don't recognize a statute of limitations for settler-colonial genocide that continues unabated for decades and will not stop until the original inhabitants are wiped out. I have no beef with the Israeli people insofar as they are not complicit, unless they vote for people who carry out the expansion, in which case fuck them; their act of voting for people who openly call for further oppression denies them any claim of innocence in my eyes, and in the eyes of the people whose homes are destroyed because of those votes.
    I find the denial of representation or freedom to move or leave repugnant. These are things that need to change. The Apartheid state needs to change.

    Regardless of whether there is one state or two, people deserve representation in government, freedom to go and be where they please, equal rights concerning ownership of land, and access to quality education.

    All the people currently expressing a claim to the region deserve to have those rights respected, no more, no less. I will not accept any bullshit rhetoric that one side or the other deserves anything less. There are atrocities all around.

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,930
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    6,302
    Rep Power
    60
    Why not a three state solution? Hamas and Fatah will not share.

  7. Top | #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.
    This isn't even a matter of trust. The majority of Palestinians say they want to continue the war even after a "peace" agreement.

  8. Top | #28
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

    The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.

  9. Top | #29
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Why not a three state solution? Hamas and Fatah will not share.
    I've been saying this for years.

    While I do not believe it would bring peace it very well might make things better between Israel and Fatah.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,572
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,112
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.
    The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

    The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.
    When did the war start? Tell us the date.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •